Tag Archives: over-development of Cambridge

Councilors Make Bold Bid To Save ‘Feeding Grounds’ For Endangered Developers!

Last Minute Order of Maher, McGovern, Benzan A Brilliant Move                                                   To Kill A Meaningful Master Plan!

Cambridge, MA — Fearing the ecological and financial damage an honest Master Plan might bring to the already threatened Cambridge Hawk, a developer species known for flying tight circles around the City of Cambridge, veteran City Councilor David Maher, and two freshman councilors, Dennis Benzan and Marc McGovern, proposed a policy order they hoped would deflate and defeat a rival call for a Master Plan.       hawk

That rival Master Plan, as proposed by councilors Dennis Carlone, E. Denise Simmons and Nadeem Mazen, would have threatened the status quo of microwave development in the city, as well as the security and livelihood of the vulnerable developers.

“SAVE THE DEVELOPERS!” resounded throughout the staid, marble-floored corridors of City Hall, as the Maher proposal was introduced. Aside from consigning the process to an endless succession of motivation-killing meetings, the Maher proposal would put responsibility for the Master Plan in the hands of the Cambridge Community Development Department (CDD), whose concern for the prosperity of Developers has been proven repeatedly. Most recently in the CDD’s pursuit of 16- and 18-story towers for Central Square.

The Maher Proposal refuses to acknowledge the high level of public unrest and dissatisfaction with current development policies, pretending residents are merely disturbed over ” recent projects.” With an unstinting blind eye to the realities all around, the Maher proposal seeks to preserve “a sensible approach” to future development (read undiminished).  It completely ignores resident outrage at the clogged roadways and, most notably, the city’s lack of honest planning.

But the most important element in the proposal is the way it will derail the Carlone proposal and keep residents from speaking their mind to the City Council on April 7th, at 5:30PM. Just as important, it will leave the Cambridge Hawk once again safe to hunt for his meal ticket in our city.

Why The Cambridge Residents Alliance STILL Matters

Almost a year has passed since my essay, “Why The Cambridge Residents Alliance Matters,”  appeared on these pages, and though much has changed in that time, much has also remained the same.

NOBODY GOES ANYWHERE!

NOBODY GOES ANYWHERE!

At the time of my original article it appeared as though the powers that be—our city council, our planning board and our Community Development Department—were rushing feverishly towards recommendations and decisions that would further gentrify Cambridge and, by spiking the already unaffordable cost of housing in our city, force out additional families and dismantle our precious but fragile diversity. Decisions that would forever change the face, the personality and character of Central Square and its adjoining neighborhoods. Decisions that would have served a gilded circle of developers, business interests and affluent renters at the expense of the city’s current residents.

Fortunately, there is a new awareness throughout our city that we have been navigating dangerous waters, that we have been traveling much too close to the perilous rocks of gentrification and ill-considered over-development. That rising awareness can be seen in the growing numbers of Cambridge residents who have tuned into city politics, either by joining our organization or by expressing their views and concerns through their votes. And consequently the makeup of this year’s city council has changed in a precedent-setting election that saw incumbents challenged as they never had been before, and new voices of reason brought on; voices that are questioning the council’s automatic green-lighting of almost every up-zoning request; voices that are calling for realistic traffic studies and the development of an honest citywide master plan.

But, as I said before, much has changed and much has remained the same. The same people who bobble-headed “Yes!” to almost every development proposal that came before the Ordnance Committee still make up a majority on the city council. The same Community Development Department whose biased and pre-determined pursuit of apartment towers for Central Square are still advocating for their C2 Advisory Committee recommendations as if those zoning changes represent the will of the people. The same rubber-stamping Zoning Board members who seemingly spend little time questioning the impact of their approvals—Alewife’s almost-terminal traffic congestion being a prime example—are still sitting at their table waiting to approve whatever the CDD puts before them.

Which is why we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. And why it’s increasingly important that neighborhood groups and concerned citizens stay involved. Make no mistake, the folks who put themselves on the line to support the massive rezoning of Central Square are not going to step aside willingly. There’s far too much at stake. From all I’ve been able to see, the C2 advisory process was set up to provide cover to a massive up-zoning of Central Square that will benefit MIT most directly, and a whole host of varied business interests. A lot of money is at stake. Money that will go into developers’ pockets, money that will lubricate the wheels and avarice of business interests and, yes, money that will also go into the city’s coffers and prove what great managers we have running our city.

As we state on our CambridgeResidentsAlliance.org web site…”The Cambridge Residents Alliance represents individuals and neighborhood organizations committed to preserving and promoting a livable, affordable and diverse Cambridge community.” We owe no allegiance to future populations whose interests must be served at the expense of our current families and economically disadvantaged residents.

We are also concerned about the choking of travel on our streets, buses and trains through over-development that is erroneously termed “Smart Development” because it happens to take place near a transit line that is maxed out and gasping for relief.

We also believe you can’t place a value on sunlight, sky views, shadow-free streets or open spaces. But we also know the price we’re being asked to pay when those intangible treasures are whittled away by policies and recommendations wholly unsuited to a city already choking on its density.

And lastly, like those activists who stopped the Inner Belt highway in its tracks all those years ago, we will not be silenced by those who propose development at all costs, who will not learn from the lessons of the past, and who refuse to honestly study the impacts of their proposals. Cambridge is a city of people from diverse backgrounds, economic levels, ethnicities and visions. Rather than put any of those parties at risk by serving the vision of taxes-hungry city managers or profit-hungry developers we’re calling for an unbiased citywide study of development and growth issues from which we can fashion a sensible approach to creating a future we all can share.

For all these reason, and more—much more!—the Cambridge Residents Alliance is STILL of critical importance to the future of our city.

Now more than ever!

 

Paul Steven Stone is a member of The Cambridge Residents Alliance, but is solely expressing personal opinions in the above essay, and not the official views of the Cambridge Residents Alliance.

Casting My Votes for Cambridge City Council

Who I’m Voting For On Tuesday…

First, to save time and energy, let me present my ABH voting list (Anybody But Him/Her) and simply remark I believe it’s time we take down the curtains and remove the old furniture from the council chamber. In other words, it’s time to let in some light and create space for new faces and new ideas.city hall

My Anybody But Him/Her list starts with the usual cast of suspects, the council members that have spent much too much time on the starting team without scoring any points. In other words, to someone like myself who’s gravely concerned with Cambridge’s lemming-like run off the development cliff, these folks repeatedly vote yes to practically any up-zoning petition that comes their way. They give lip service to caring about families and the economically disadvantaged, but they don’t care enough to question whether they’re actually contributing to the roaring fires of gentrification that are driving out those on the middle and lower runs of Cambridge’s economic ladder. Misters Maher, Reeves, Cheung and Toomey, as well as Ms. Denise Simmons, all deserve our thanks for their many contributions, but also a long, perhaps permanent, vacation from the City Council, in my humble estimation. Sorry, but there it is.

Which means I do support the re-election of two current council members, Minka vanBeuzekom and Craig Kelley, both of whom have shown the courage of their convictions many times in council chambers, Minka’s most valiantly when she stood up to the bullying of fellow council members to vote No on the MIT 26-acre Grand Giveaway.

So, the question now arises, who amongst the crowded field of new candidates most deserves our single-digit numbered votes? First I would have to list Dennis Carlone who has already scored three endorsements (including one from the Cambridge Residents Alliance, of which I am a member) as the only candidate with a background in urban planning. Given the mad scramble to build 14-16-and 18-story apartment towers in Central Square, Dennis’ background and convictions would bring a critical contribution to any discussion about the future of our city. After Dennis come the following, though not in any prescribed order: Kristen von Hoffman, James Williamson, Gary Mello and Nadeem Mazen, all of whom appear worthy of our votes. I apologize for most likely missing other worthy candidates, but there are just too many for me to juggle without dropping a few on the floor. Alone among the crowded field, I believe only Dennis Carlone and Gary Mello have made a point of rejecting donations from developers, a critical decision when some of your most important upcoming council votes will most likely concern those very same developers. Also, it should be mentioned that Dennis Benzan, alone among many, seemed to be the Golden Child in raising money for his campaign. Good thing or bad thing? You decide. Only If Dennis had any more signs around the city we might consider re-christening Cambridge as Benzanville.

Anyway, in two days you, I and our fellow citizens will either make history or fall into the trap of sending the same old faces back to clean up the mess they’ve been making for the last four, twelve or 24 years.

I don’t know about you, but that’s a mistake I’ve made for the last time.

Cambridge Changes Name Again. Now To Be Called “Lake Cambridge.”

Expect Delays!, MA (formerly Cambridge, MA): In a surprise move, once again agreed upon in Remote Executive Session (as most of the City Council was stuck in traffic), a majority of City Councillors voted to change the city’s name for a second time in as many months.

A leisurely commute to work in Cambridge.

A leisurely commute to work in a future Cambridge.

As you may recall, the city only recently changed its name to “Expect Delays!” to reflect the almost epic traffic jams and massive tie-ups encountered daily by city residents on area roadways and Red Line trains. When faced with the question of what to do about this seemingly unsolvable transportation crisis, the city council took two major steps: first they decided to act as if the problem didn’t exist, immediately approving two major up-zoning petitions that would bring thousands more commuters and car trips into the city, and second, they voted to rename the city “Expect Delays” in order to deflate any possible public outcry about the traffic mess.

“How can you complain about traffic in a city named Expect Delays!” longtime Councillor Ken Reeves asked when the issue was first raised. “There’s also the potential savings in signage to consider,” Councillor Timothy Toomey pointed out, “Heck, there’s an “Expect Delays!” sign on just about every major thoroughfare in the city. All we have to do is add the words “Welcome To” on each sign facing inbound drivers.”

And so acting thusly, all was once again harmony in our city—now named Expect Delays!—and on our city council. Until recently that is, when a band of tree-hugging, ice-cap lamenting troublemakers demanded the city respond to global warming by decreeing all major new construction conform to Net Zero Emissions standards.

Those same troublemakers pointed out the city is predicted to be 50% under water within 50 years, in cases of 10-year and 100-year storms. In fact, major landowner MIT, recently granted a zoning-busting 26-acre Planned Urban Development district, would be transformed into a water theme park with merely a two to three foot rise in the sea level.

The dark purple ain't good.

If your home is in the dark purple—it ain’t good!

(Check out the map above to see if your house or business will be above or below the high water line.)

After much acrimonious debate that saw pro-development interests predict wide-scale economic catastrophe, threatening an end to the era of no-holds-barred development and thus to developer handouts to the city and its politicians, the City Council voted to act decisively. They immediately voted to change the city’s name once again, this time to “Lake Cambridge”, and instructed the City Manager to buy thousands of kayaks and canoes to ensure future traffic patterns would once again flow smoothly.

Beauty Or The Beast In Central Square?

IMG_2173

The photo accompanying this essay is as close to a Rorschach test as any you might find. It shows two elements currently being discussed in regards to the future of Central Square. In the foreground is one of the city-owned parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive—Parking Lot #5. Behind it rises a building that will have to serve as a stand-in for the 16-story towers proposed by the Central Square Advisory Committee (C2 Committee) with the guidance of the Community Development Department.

I offer this photo for you to consider which of these elements is Beauty and which is the Beast? The Parking Lot or the Tower?

For me the choice is simple. I often traverse Parking Lot #5 in the normal course of my life; it’s a gateway through the graffiti alley, taking me from Mass. Ave. to Area 4 where I live. Unlike one of the members of the C2 Committee who was quoted as being afraid to enter the parking lot, I don’t find the lot threatening or scary, but rather, I find it welcoming. It takes you from the noise and congestion of Central Square to a place of spaciousness and quiet that serves as an entranceway to a neighborhood of modest wood framed homes.

True, I would prefer grass to all the cars, asphalt and concrete, but my eyes rarely linger on what I can’t enjoy. In the spring the trees are all in flower, serving as a glorious natural frame for David Fichter’s fabulous “Community Potluck” mural. As you can see from the photo, they still serve that function long after the blossoms have fallen from their branches.

In all honesty, the tower in the photo—an office building rather than the apartment towers being proposed—doesn’t offend me, but it certainly doesn’t seem anywhere near as attractive and relevant to my life, or my neighborhood, as does the not-so-frightening Parking Lot #5.

But more than anything else, the real Beauty in this photo hovers above both these earthbound elements—the sky! It’s the sky that is most often the unconsidered element in all these discussions. No doubt those who see the Beast in our Rorschach parking lot; who see the potential for more structures, more profits and more tax revenues, would argue that towers dotting the landscape will barely obscure the sky or lessen its impact on the quality of our lives.

But along with the towers, I see shadows on our landscape. And I see more—more congestion, more people and more noise. I see currently crowded roads further burdened; public transit systems, already maxed-out, strained to the breaking point; and I see endless sacrifices made by current area residents only to serve the needs of future residents, the profits of wealthy developers and the thirst for additional tax revenues. None of which sounds like Beauty to me.

Beauty or the Beast? The Parking Lot or the Tower? Better make up your mind before you discover how long a shadow follows the Beast.